Nelson Levine Ex-Chair Renews Plea for Partner Arbitration
Michael Nelson alleges his ex-partners took too much money and left too much debt when they departed.
December 14, 2017 at 05:37 PM
9 minute read
Photo: Waldemarus/Shutterstock.com
Michael Nelson, the former chairman of dissolved insurance boutique Nelson Levine de Luca & Hamilton, has doubled down on his efforts to force his former partners into arbitration, alleging that they took too much money and too little debt with them when they left the failed firm.
After elaborating on his claims in another recent filing, Nelson filed a motion to compel arbitration Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He sued his former partners in July, seeking to arbitrate claims arising from the dissolution and liquidation of the firm.
He contends that he tried to initiate mediation by way of procedures set by the Pennsylvania Bar Association, but his former partners refused to participate.
In an amended complaint filed Nov. 13, Nelson added some detail to his claims. He alleged that he had to repay more than his fair share of a $4 million line of credit; that his former partners took advance draws exceeding their distributions for 2014; and that defendants John Clark, Daniel de Luca and Kenneth Levine, while still partners at Nelson Levine, took time to prepare for launching their own firms. Clark's firm is Clark & Fox in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, and the other two founded de Luca Levine in Blue Bell.
Nelson Levine, which became Nelson Brown & Co. after Levine, de Luca and Hamilton left, was plagued by a rapidly decreasing head count beginning in early 2014. It officially shuttered in the spring of 2015.
That happened when Nelson, who was the last remaining name partner, joined Sutherland Asbill & Brennan. In his latest filing, he argues that beyond the impact on his ex-firm, he was personally affected by his former partners' departures.
The firm is neither a necessary party, Nelson argued, nor is it indispensable, giving the district court subject-matter jurisdiction to compel arbitration.
“Nelson is not seeking a judgment on the merits but, rather, an order compelling the parties to comply with their duty to submit to ADR the merits of their substantive claims and defenses,” the motion said.
Defendants Clark, de Luca, Levine, Michael Hamilton, Claudia McCarron and John Mullen have all filed new motions to dismiss in response to the amended complaint, while David Brown and William Krekstein filed answers. The defendants have argued that Nelson lacks standing, and that his complaint did not describe arbitrable claims.
Levine and de Luca also noted in their motion to dismiss that Nelson has already sued them over their departure from Nelson Levine, and that case settled. As a result, they said, Nelson has now waived his right to arbitration.
Nelson, in his latest motion, argued he has not waived arbitration because the earlier suit was in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and the plaintiff was the firm, not himself.
Representing himself and Levine, de Luca declined to comment Thursday. Hamilton, Krekstein and McCarron, who are also representing themselves, did not return calls for comment. Nicholas Jajko of Mullen Coughlin, who is representing John Mullen, did not return a call. Nor did Michael Savett of Clark & Fox, who is representing Clark.
Photo: Waldemarus/Shutterstock.com
Michael Nelson, the former chairman of dissolved insurance boutique
After elaborating on his claims in another recent filing, Nelson filed a motion to compel arbitration Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He sued his former partners in July, seeking to arbitrate claims arising from the dissolution and liquidation of the firm.
He contends that he tried to initiate mediation by way of procedures set by the Pennsylvania Bar Association, but his former partners refused to participate.
In an amended complaint filed Nov. 13, Nelson added some detail to his claims. He alleged that he had to repay more than his fair share of a $4 million line of credit; that his former partners took advance draws exceeding their distributions for 2014; and that defendants John Clark, Daniel de Luca and Kenneth Levine, while still partners at
That happened when Nelson, who was the last remaining name partner, joined
The firm is neither a necessary party, Nelson argued, nor is it indispensable, giving the district court subject-matter jurisdiction to compel arbitration.
“Nelson is not seeking a judgment on the merits but, rather, an order compelling the parties to comply with their duty to submit to ADR the merits of their substantive claims and defenses,” the motion said.
Defendants Clark, de Luca, Levine, Michael Hamilton, Claudia McCarron and John Mullen have all filed new motions to dismiss in response to the amended complaint, while David Brown and William Krekstein filed answers. The defendants have argued that Nelson lacks standing, and that his complaint did not describe arbitrable claims.
Levine and de Luca also noted in their motion to dismiss that Nelson has already sued them over their departure from
Nelson, in his latest motion, argued he has not waived arbitration because the earlier suit was in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and the plaintiff was the firm, not himself.
Representing himself and Levine, de Luca declined to comment Thursday. Hamilton, Krekstein and McCarron, who are also representing themselves, did not return calls for comment. Nicholas Jajko of Mullen Coughlin, who is representing John Mullen, did not return a call. Nor did Michael Savett of Clark & Fox, who is representing Clark.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'The World Didn't End This Morning': Phila. Firm Leaders Respond to Election Results
4 minute readSettlement With Kleinbard in Diversity Contracting Tiff Allows Pa. Lawyer to Avoid Sanctions
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250